Maurer

The plaintiff applied for a writ of mandate commanding the defendant as city treasurer of the city of Eureka to pay a warrant drawn in plaintiff’s favor by the proper officers of said city. A trial was had and judgment was entered directing that a peremptory writ of mandate issue commanding the defendant, as such treasurer, to pay the amount of the warrant.

The defendant appeals from said judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. The warrant was drawn in payment for certain services performed under a written contract the validity of which is the bone of contention on this appeal. Said contract was between the city of Eureka and plaintiff, and there seems to be no objection as to its form or proper execution. The services to be rendered are set forth in the agreement in the following language:—

The main contention of appellant is, that this contract is void for the reason that the services to be rendered are included in the legal duties of the city assessor, and hence that the council could not legally employ plaintiff to perform them.

Section 79 of the charter of Eureka makes the general law pertaining to revenue and taxation for state and county purposes…